Important points demonstrating how the Heathrow 3rd runway is far from certain, at Westminster Hall debate

Date added: January 26, 2018

On Wednesday 24th January, Vince Cable MP secured a debate in Westminster Hall, on the issue of the 3rd Heathrow runway plans and Heathrow’s current consultation on their expansion hopes. Some of the MPs who spoke were Ruth Cadbury, Zac Goldsmith, Andy Slaughter, Karl Turner and Stephen Pound. They expressed serious reservations on issues of cost to the taxpayer, cost of surface access transport improvements, increased noise, uncertain air pollution, uncertain CO2 emissions, uncertain economic benefits and uncertain links to regional airports. Quotes from the MP contributions are shown below. Just a couple include: Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con) – “one problem with the consultation is that we know that hundreds of thousands of new people will be affected by noise, but we do not know which hundreds of thousands, because the Government and Heathrow have yet to tell us where the new flight paths will be, which renders the entire consultation process entirely disingenuous, if not dishonest? It is a bit like saying, “We’re going to put a new incinerator in your constituency, and we’d like to ask people their opinion, but we’re not going to say where it’ll be put.” Surely the entire basis of the consultation’s legitimacy has a question mark hanging over it.” And Andy Slaughter – “Getting these glossy pamphlets through the door, as one does on a regular basis from Heathrow, sends the subliminal message, “This is a done deal. Get used to it. Get what you can out of it by way of mitigation.” It simply is not good enough.”
.Tweet

So many important points were made in the debate. Below are just a few, in case people do not have the time – or inclination – to read the whole debate.

Vince Cable (Twickenham) (Lib Dem) – “One important step is how we are to see the consultation that Heathrow airport itself is now engaging in. It is important for our constituents to understand that what Heathrow airport is proposing seems substantially different from what the Government are proposing.”

.

Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab) – “I wonder whether, among the data of the passenger and transport movements to and from the airport, there has been a disaggregation that identifies the cargo and freight movements—specifically because the economy of Northern Ireland is almost entirely dependent on cargo freight movements into Heathrow airport….”

.

Sir Vince Cable – “I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope the Minister will be able to.” [The Minister, Jesse Norman, did not address this question].

.

Sir Vince Cable – “we are potentially talking about large Government subsidy if the airport is to avoid a very large increase in landing charges or funding from sources that we cannot yet identify. Is there a level of subsidy and Government funding that is unacceptable? We have new evidence, which is emerging all the time and is becoming progressively less favourable to the case for Heathrow, so I will leave this question with the Minister: how open-minded are the Government to that new evidence, and how will they progress the project?”

[The Minister was not able to reply to this question].

.

Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) – “ I also thank the Library, which released this week an excellent summary of where we are and how we got there. It is neutral, dispassionate, but factual, and pulls together all the references that we need for such a debate. I also thank the No 3rd Runway Coalition for its help in briefing some of us for the debate.”

.

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con) – “one problem with the consultation is that we know that hundreds of thousands of new people will be affected by noise, but we do not know which hundreds of thousands, because the Government and Heathrow have yet to tell us where the new flight paths will be, which renders the entire consultation process entirely disingenuous, if not dishonest? It is a bit like saying, “We’re going to put a new incinerator in your constituency, and we’d like to ask people their opinion, but we’re not going to say where it’ll be put.” Surely the entire basis of the consultation’s legitimacy has a question mark hanging over it.”

.

Ruth Cadbury – “In the autumn, there was the Government consultation on the draft national policy statement on airports, and I felt sorry for DFT staff in that consultation, because the answer to so many of the questions that local residents asked them were, “I’m sorry; I don’t know,” or “I’m sorry; we don’t have that information yet.” I see the same thing happening with Heathrow airport staff in the newly relaunched consultation. ”

.

Ruth Cadbury – “If it is not yet possible to map the detailed impact on local communities, what is the point of consulting right now?

“What my constituents want to know is this. First, where is the approach path to the third runway? There is no reason why that cannot be mapped now, because the runway is there. We are within 6 miles of the airport, and all flights will be locked into final approach; it is basic physics. So why cannot we be told where the approach path is, how high the planes will be and how wide the approach path will be? We are not in one of the areas where there can be concentration or spreading out. We are so close to the airport that all planes have to be locked in, at least on approach. I think it is deliberate that we are not being told.”

.

Ruth Cadbury – “What will the air quality implications be if there is no diesel scrappage scheme? How will a congestion charge affect the many local businesses and residents that need to travel around the airport even if they are not actually using it? What will the new transport infrastructure be? There have been many questions about that. And of course nationally we are all concerned about who will pay for this. There is no clarity on how the runway, terminal buildings and essential work will be paid for, and there is certainly no clarity or agreement on the essential traffic impacts.”

.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) – “Nothing in this consultation, as my constituency neighbour to the west, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), has just said, tells us about flight paths. That is the key point that people want to know. Without that, it becomes an almost vacuous exercise. Yet we are not to know the flight paths, we are told, until 2021, after all the major decisions are made. There is nothing in the consultation about who will pay—particularly, as has been mentioned, who will pay the estimated £18 billion for public transport.”

.

Andy Slaughter – “Getting these glossy pamphlets through the door, as one does on a regular basis from Heathrow, sends the subliminal message, “This is a done deal. Get used to it. Get what you can out of it by way of mitigation.” It simply is not good enough.”

.

Andy Slaughter – ” [We hoped] planned improvements—such as Crossrail and upgrading the Piccadilly line—to public transport in London, would improve quality of life and enable Londoners to go about their business better, but they will all be sacrificed to mitigating the additional burdens, inconveniences and health hazards that Heathrow intends to inflict on us. Why should that be the case? Why should Londoners have to pay financially, through their health and through the inconvenience in their daily lives for this white elephant project to go ahead?”

.

Andy Slaughter – “We are serving a company that is 90% foreign-owned, that is debt-laden and that pays no tax other than the VAT it pays on the sales from shops—increasingly it is a ​business in that way. We have opposition from the airlines that are unwilling to pay the greatly enhanced landing charges that will be levied in order to pay for this white elephant project. Everybody seems to pay except the shareholders of Heathrow Airport Holdings.”

.

Andy Slaughter – “I wait to hear with interest the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on the Front Bench. Very wisely, the Labour Front Bench team has set a series of tests and not prejudged the issue. As time goes on, we will see that those tests will not be met.”

.

Zac Goldsmith – “BA has announced that later this year it will be cutting half its routes between Leeds Bradford and Heathrow. Does that not show that the economics of domestic flights and domestic connections just does not stack up? The promises on greater connectivity between Scotland and Heathrow can be delivered only with the help of Government subsidy, and as far as I know there are no promises relating to that.”

.

Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) – “he Labour party supports the expansion of airport capacity in the south-east, subject to our four tests being met. However, the Government’s draft airports national policy statement, published in October last year, and the responses to it have raised more questions than they have answered. The updated passenger demand forecasts show an increase in passenger growth, with a third runway at Heathrow to be full by 2028. The third runway will open in only 2026. That means that all take-off and landing spots will be full just two years after opening, which is a point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Does the Minister agree that that limits the potential benefits of increased airport capacity?”

.

Karl Turner – “The NPS states that none of the cost of a third runway will fall on the taxpayer, and that it will be met by private funding. Yet it does not provide any evidence to support that. There is a reference to an independent assessment that has been carried out, but it has not been published. There seems no reason not to publish that assessment unless there is something to hide. Will the Minister agree to release that document?”

.

Karl Turner – “The commitment that there will be no net increase in airport-related traffic is essential to ensuring that expansion is sustainable. Transport for London has estimated that to achieve that, between 65% and 69% of passengers would have to travel to the airport by public transport. The NPS sets an unambitious target of 50% by 2030, going up to 55% by 2042. TfL has said that that will lead to a substantial increase in vehicle trips on the already congested networks. Furthermore, the western rail access and southern rail access are essential for expansion, but TfL is concerned that the NPS gives no firm commitment on that. The Department for Transport has estimated that costs will be about £5 billion, but TfL puts the figure closer to £15 billion. The difference seems to be TfL costings for southern rail access.”

.

Karl Turner – “Given the difference between the NPS and TfL estimates on both costing and public transport targets, and the fact that TfL is the highways authority and public ​transport authority that completely surrounds Heathrow, I find it absolutely astounding that it has been excluded from the service access steering group for Heathrow by the Department for Transport. Will the Minister explain that decision?”

.

Karl Turner – “On air pollution, the Government have frankly been found wanting. They have failed to give local authorities the powers they need to protect air quality and failed to support sustainable transport. Those failures threaten not only public health, but future investment. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain how he will ensure that legal levels of air quality will be achieved if Heathrow is expanded? What resources have he or the Government directed to that important task?”

.

Karl Turner – “The revised NPS has increased the estimate for carbon emissions from the third runway, but it does not explain the national implications. Will that lead to the sacrificing of growth at regional airports or more challenging limits for other sectors? Can the Minister shed some more light on how the UK will meet carbon emissions targets with the expansion of Heathrow?”

.

Karl Turner – “The noise assessment in the NPS uses indicative flight paths, and the actual flight paths will be published only after the decision on Heathrow’s development consent order application is made. There is no requirement for them to bear any resemblance to the flight paths published in the NPS. The revised NPS uses 2013 as a baseline, which allows the airport to bank technology changes when they should be used to alleviate the noise impacts of the airport. Given the importance of the issue, I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on whether the noise assessment in the NPS gives an accurate account of the noise impacts.”

.

Karl Turner – “any decision must be based on hard evidence with transparency. As we have seen today, many questions seem to remain unanswered.”

.

5.19pm

Government spokesman:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman) [who has been in the job for just a month, and did not appear to be on top of his brief] – ” I emphasise that no final decision—indeed, no decision of any kind—has been taken on the matter. To that extent, to answer the right hon. Member for Twickenham, the Government are absolutely open to contrary arguments and considerations, within their stated preference.”

.

Jesse Norman (on air quality) – “the Government have assessed the impact of the Heathrow north-west runway scheme on the air quality plan. Within that analysis, it appears to be compliant, and that is before taking account of any mitigation measures that Heathrow could apply. That is the basis on which the Government are proceeding.”

.

Jesse Norman (on surface access costs) – ” The Government do not recognise TfL’s numbers, which appear to include schemes that are not directly related to Heathrow. The infrastructure contribution that the ​Government make will be related not to the airport, but to the other incidental benefits that transport has for users.”

.

Jesse Norman (on flight paths) – “Finally, on the detail on flights, proposals to change the UK’s airspace need to follow the Civil Aviation Authority’s airspace change process, which is the regulatory process that the Government have adopted. It is not in the Government’s hands to vary that in this context. As with other aspects, we will follow due process.”

.

Vince Cable – summing up – “As far as the responsiveness of the Government is concerned, I am gratified that the Minister said in his concluding remarks that they still have an open mind. Many past comments cast some doubt on that. I am also grateful that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said that the Opposition are approaching the issue pragmatically and in terms of tests, and that they have not come to a final conclusion on it. Those responses give me some encouragement that there is a lot more to argue for.”

See the full transcript, and the full inadequacy of the Minister’s remarks (the standard platitudes), at